Agency Contact:

This agency contact information was current at the time of the report but may have changed in the interim. Please call (512-463-5455) for current contact information of the agency's records manager or records liaison for these records.

Agency History and Structure:

The Judicial Qualifications Commission was created by Constitutional amendment in 1965 (Texas Constitution, Article V, Section 1-a). Following the example of California, Texas was only the second state in the United States to create such an essentially investigatory body; now every state of the Union has a judicial disciplinary agency. The original commission was composed of 9 members: 2 appeals judges and 2 district judges (named by the Texas Supreme Court), 2 members of the State Bar (named by the State Bar), and 3 citizen members (named by the Governor). In 1977, the name was changed to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which was now enlarged to 11 members: 5 judges (one appellate judge, one district judge, one county court-at-law judge, one justice of the peace, and one municipal court judge), all named by the Supreme Court; 2 lawyers (who must each have ten consecutive years of practice in Texas) named by the State Bar; and 4 public members (who must be at least 30 years old and not licensed to practice law) named by the Governor. Each appointment is subject to the advice and consent of the State Senate. Members serve 6-year terms. The members elect their own chair.

Jurisdiction of the original Commission included Supreme Court justices, state appellate judges, and district judges. In 1970, the jurisdiction of the commission was broadened to include all judicial officers of the state: justices of the Supreme Court, appellate judges, district judges, county judges, justices of the peace, municipal judges, judges of courts of domestic relations, juvenile court judges, probate judges, masters, magistrates, and retired or former judges assigned as visiting judges (a number totalling 3,000 in 1993).

The commission opens an investigation when a complaint is received, but may also initiate investigations following news reports of possible misconduct. Such proceedings are confidential until a formal hearing is convened, unless the judge being investigated asks that they be open, or unless the commission issues a public requirement for further training or education. The public hearing may be before the commission or before a special master chosen by the commission.

The commission may do any of the following:

dismiss the complaint;

order a public or private admonition, warning, or reprimand;

require a judge to obtain additional training or education, or to undergo a physical or psychological exam;

suspend, with or without pay, a judge charged with a felony or misdemeanor involving misconduct in office;

seek removal or censure through formal proceedings (amounting to a public trial).

A sanction issued by the commission on a complaint received after October 20, 1987 may be appealed to a special court of review, composed of three justices from courts of appeal, selected by lot by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (House Bill 142, 70th Legislature, 2nd Called Session).

In the case of a recommendation for removal or formal censure, the matter goes to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who chooses a tribunal of seven judges by lot from the courts of appeals; appeal of this decision is to the Texas Supreme Court. (In the first ten years of the commission's existence, it issued only one recommendation for removal, which was then rejected by the Supreme Court, who instead censured the judge.) This procedure represents an alternative to other methods of removal, such as impeachment, which still remain available options.

Improper conduct is defined as, but is not limited to, failure to execute business in a timely manner, willful violation of the Penal Code or the Code of Judicial Conduct, or of Supreme Court rules, and incompetence.

The commission cannot do any of the following:

change any court decision;

act as an appellate review board;

give legal advice;

issue advisory opinions; or

sanction any judge who acted in good faith (a determination subject to the judgment of the commission).

The commission reported an average increase of 9.5 percent per year in the number of complaints filed between 1983 and 1994.

The commission has been charged with enforcement, among other things, of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Following both the letter and the spirit of this Code, there are three objectives which the commission has set for itself:

to preserve the integrity of all judges in the state;

to ensure public confidence in the judiciary; and

to encourage judges to maintain high standards of both professional and personal conduct.

Organizational complexity: The Commission on Judicial Conduct has no separate divisions, just an executive director, a general counsel, legal staff, and administrative staff, totaling 9.5 full-time equivalent employees in 1994.

I reviewed the records retention schedule, a recertification approved March 13, 1995.

On December 6, 1989, Chris LaPlante sent a letter to Tina Beck concerning the need to contact the State Archives concerning "A" series and "R" series. There was no response to this letter in the files of the Archives Division.

On January 18, 1995, Tina Beck telephoned Paul Beck to ask if the Archives wanted Grant Request Files, which (according to the phone message sheet in the Agency Retention Schedule file) had an "A" designation; these are grant requests submitted by the commission to the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office, and have been used to fund staff positions. However, this series was not marked "A" in the initial certification, which was submitted September 27 and approved December 4, 1989 (1.1.004, agency item number 9, Grant Requests to Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office). Nor is there any change in the archival designation of that series in the first recertification (December 28, 1990), or the second recertification (December 17, 1991). In the third recertification (due December 1992 and approved February 22, 1993) there was a change to 1.1.004, agency item number 18 and 19, "Archival Code added to comply with RRRS." None of the actual recertifications except the current one are in the file, so I cannot be sure that this refers to Grant Request Files, but I assume so because of the Records Analyst's notation on January 30, 1995: "1.1, agency item number 13, Comments: AC+6 to AC+3, 1.1.004 to 1.1, A removed from Archival code." Since 1.1.004 is actually the record series number for biennial budget requests, I can understand the confusion. At any rate, the current recertification has removed the "A" code, which it never should have had in the first place.

On October 13, 1995, I spoke briefly with Mary Ann Albin, Records Consultant, concerning the questions which I would be asking on our initial visit with the agency. On that same day, I mailed the introductory letter from Chris to the Executive Director, Robert C. Flowers. The four of us (Mr. Flowers, Tina Beck, Mary Ann Albin, and I) met on October 25 at the Commission's office in the William P. Clements Building, where all of my more general questions were answered. I left worksheets with Tina, asking all of the more specific questions for each series (volume, date span, purpose, etc.), which she promised to complete and return to me as soon as possible. On November 15, Tina mailed me completed worksheets for the five series marked "R". I spoke to her by telephone on November 20 and asked additional questions on these series plus the two "A" series. I spoke to her again on December 8 to ask about questions which my supervisor, Carolyn Foster, had after she had read the first draft of my appraisal report. Since she was busy with commission meetings, I called her back January 11 and 12, 1996 and resolved these questions, plus some minor ones which had arisen in the meantime.

Five series on the agency records retention schedule are marked "A", as archival: public sanctions, proceedings; public records, sanctions, and proceedings; biennial budget requests; organizational charts; and annual report (non-fiscal). Five series are marked "R", for archival review: correspondence, administrative; executive directives; policies and procedures; reports - conference; and speeches.

Strategic plans, which normally constitute another archival series, are not required for the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, since it is a judicial agency.

Two other groups of records series are notable: records concerning cases, and records concerning meetings. The first of these includes case files, the case file database, and case file reports, which are all confidential (Texas Constitution, Article 5, Section 1-a(10), and V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 33.032). Case Files have a retention period of 20 years after closing (AC plus 20).

The other group of notable records series includes meeting agenda, meeting minutes, meeting brief books, and meeting tapes of personal appearances, which are also all confidential (Texas Constitution, Article 5, Section 1-a(10), and V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 33.032). Meeting minutes are permanent (PM). Meeting tapes have a retention period of 20 years after the meeting (AC plus 20).

Previous Destructions:

Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library were checked for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and none were found.

Project Outcome:

This agency appraisal is now completed. My recommendations, series by series, are summarized as follows:

Public Sanctions, Proceedings, 1965-1987 Continue to use "A" as the archival code. The records retention schedule should be amended to include the following statement under Remarks: "Documents constituting public records before the amendment of Chapter 33, Section 33.032 of the Texas Government Code, effective August 31, 1987. Files should be transferred to the State Archives after the end of the retention period, on an annual basis." The agency should now begin the transfer of those files which have met the retention requirement (i.e., which have been closed for five years), including a hard copy of the index. Following the transfer of the last closed file in this series, the agency can remove the series from the records retention schedule, since it will then be obsolete.

Public Records, Sanctions, and Proceedings, 1987- [ongoing]
Continue to use "A" as the archival code. The records retention schedule should be amended to include the following statement under Remarks: "Documents constituting public records after the amendment of Chapter 33, Section 33.032 of the Texas Government Code, effective August 31, 1987. Includes audio cassettes as well as paper records. Files should be transferred to the State Archives after the end of the retention period, on an annual basis." The agency should also change the medium designation to "O", to reflect presence of audio cassettes. The agency should now begin the transfer of those files which have met the retention requirement, including a hard copy of the index. In the future, the agency might consider dividing this series into two series: records resulting in public sanctions without hearings, and records of public proceedings.

Biennial Budget Requests
Continue to use "A" as the archival code. The archival requirement is fulfilled by sending copies to the Publications Clearinghouse of the Texas State Library, as the Remarks column in agency's records retention schedule indicates.

Organizational Charts
Continue to use "A" as the archival code. The Remarks column in agency's records retention schedule should state: "Included in Biennial Budget Request. The archival requirement will be met by sending a copy to the Publications Clearinghouse, Texas State Library."

Annual Report (Non-Fiscal)
Continue to use "A" as the archival code. The archival requirement is fulfilled by sending copies to the Publications Clearinghouse of the Texas State Library, as the Remarks column in agency's records retention schedule indicates. In addition, if the agency has duplicate copies of those annual reports missing from the Clearinghouse (1990 and 1992), they should transfer these to the Clearinghouse.

Correspondence, Administrative
Change the archival designation from "R" to "A". After review by the agency for confidentiality, files which are no longer of sufficient current administrative use should be transferred to the State Archives, and then reviewed annually for future transfer. The agency's Records Administrator should consult with the State Library's Record Consultant concerning the possible revision of the retention period, to assure smooth transfers of administrative correspondence in the future.

Executive Directives
Remove the "R" designation, and possibly change the name of the series to "Directives."

Policies and Procedures
Eliminate this series altogether, if there is no additional documentation of policies and procedures other than what is published in the Annual Report, and since Annual Reports are already designated archival.

Speeches
Change the archival designation from "R" to "A". Transfer to the State Archives those files which have met the retention period. I also urge the agency to file a complete text of each speech, if possible, rather than merely an outline with supporting documents.

Record Series Reviews

Obsolete record series? Yes
Replaced by: Public Records, Sanctions, and Proceedings, 1987-[ongoing]
Ongoing record series? No

Agency holdings: Public records and sanctions files are maintained in the agency library (approximately 4.3 cubic feet: 4 linear inches of public sanctions, and 4 cubic feet of public proceedings). These records are still being retained by the agency, although the stated retention period is five years after closing. Actual holdings are 1965-1987.

Description: These records consist of two types of files:
(a) The first type of record is the smallest in volume: the public sanctions which were issued by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (called the Judicial Qualifications Commission prior to 1977) against judges as a result of investigations initiated prior to August 31, 1987, but which did not reach the stage of a formal hearing. These public sanctions date from 1965-1987. Each sanction ranged in length from 1 to 15 pages.

(b) The second type of record is much more voluminous: public proceedings, which are records created and/or introduced during formal hearings. These public proceedings records also date from 1965-1987, although they do not differ in form or substance from proceedings records which were created after August 31, 1987. Proceedings files contain the standard legal documents common to most court files: briefs, motions, conclusions, orders, evidence, etc. In addition, each proceedings file contains what is referred to as the Public Record, which includes the following: the original complaint, the letter of inquiry from the commission to the judge, the judge's reply, an invitation to the judge to appear before the commission, the agenda (a brief prepared by commission staff outlining the issues of the allegation), and the final action by the commission.

Purpose: The public sanctions part of these records were created to serve as the summary public record of sanctions issued against judges as a result of investigations held by the commission during that period prior to August 31, 1987, when records were confidential until and unless they resulted in the convening of a formal hearing.

The public proceedings part of these records were created to serve as the complete record of formal hearings on complaints received by the commission. They also serve as a research resource to commission staff in preparing for similar cases in the future.

Agency Program: These files document the major function of the commission during the first 22 years of its existence, which was (and still is) to discipline judges found guilty of improper conduct or incompetence. Supporting documents remained confidential through August 31, 1987, unless they resulted in a formal hearing.

Effective June 14, 1967, "All papers filed with and proceedings before the Commission or a Master shall be confidential, and the filing of papers with, and the giving of testimony before, the commission, Master or the Supreme Court shall be privileged; provided that upon being filed in the Supreme Court the record loses its confidential character." (Texas Constitution, Article V, Section 1-a(10); House Bill 378, 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 1967).

Effective August 29, 1983, "The papers filed with and proceedings before the commission are confidential prior to the convening of a formal hearing. The formal hearing, and all papers, records, documents, and other evidence introduced during the formal hearing, shall be public." (House Bill 734, 68th Legislature, Regular Session, 1983), codified in V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 33.032(a)-(b).

Effective August 31, 1987, "If the commission issues a public admonition, warning, reprimand, or requirement that a person obtain additional training or education, all papers, documents, evidence, and records considered by the commission, or forwarded to the commission by its staff, in the proceedings shall be public." (House Bill 1523, 70th Legislature, Regular Session, 1987), codified in V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 33.032(c).

Arrangement: Chronological

Access constraints: None

Use constraints: None

Indexes or finding aids required for, or an aid to access? There is a public sanctions index, on computer disk, cross-referenced in three ways: by judge's name, by date, and by topic.

Gaps? None

Problems: None

Known related records in other agencies: Supreme Court cases: e.g., B-5898, In the Matter of O. P. Carrillo (in holdings of Texas State Archives).

Previous destructions: Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library were checked for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and none were found for this series or for equivalent or related series.

Recommendation: Public sanctions and proceedings provide the fullest documentation (consistent within the legal limitations of confidentiality) of the major function of the commission, which is to discipline judges found guilty of improper conduct or incompetence. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct's records retention schedule should therefore continue to use "A" as the archival code. The records retention schedule should be amended to include the following statement under Remarks: "Documents constituting public records before the amendment of Chapter 33, Section 33.032 of the Texas Government Code, effective August 31, 1987. Files should be transferred to the State Archives after the end of the retention period, on an annual basis."

The agency should now begin the transfer of those files which have met the retention requirement (i.e., which have been closed for five years), including a hard copy of the index. Following the transfer of the last closed file in this series, the agency can remove the series from the records retention schedule, since it will then be obsolete.

This series of records and the next series (Public Records, Sanctions, and Proceedings) might logically have been divided/combined into three series: (1) public proceedings files, 1965-[ongoing]; (2) public sanctions, 1965-1987; and (3) public sanctions with supporting documents, 1987-[ongoing]. However, since those records prior to 1987 appear to be ready for transfer to the State Archives now or in the near future, such a readjustment seems unnecessary.

Agency holdings: Public records, sanctions, and proceedings files are maintained in the agency library (approximately 12-15 cubic feet, a total of 25 or so cases). Actual holdings begin in 1987, although the agency has assigned a retention period of five years after the close of a case.

Archival holdings: None at the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library.

Description: This series consists of all documents, evidence, and records considered by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct which result in either public sanctions against a judge without a formal hearing, or the convening of a public hearing to consider more serious disciplinary actions against the judge. The records date from 1987- [ongoing]; more specifically, they document actions initiated since August 31, 1987. These files contain the standard legal documents common to most court files: briefs, motions, conclusions, orders, evidence, etc. In addition, each file contains what is referred to as the Public Record, which includes the following: the original complaint, the letter of inquiry from the commission to the judge, the judge's reply, an invitation to the judge to appear before the commission, the agenda (a brief prepared by commission staff outlining the issues of the allegation), and the final action by the commission.

One case, the Thoma case, is particularly prominent, since it went to a tribunal. The volume of this one case is approximately 12 cubic feet, and is not included in the estimate above, since it is a convenience copy--the originals having been forwarded to the Supreme Court.

Purpose: This series serves as the official public record of the commission's formal proceedings against judges charged with improper conduct or incompetence. It also serves as a research resource to commission staff in preparing for future commission proceedings.

Agency Program: These files document the major function of the commission, which is to discipline judges found guilty of improper conduct or incompetence. Supporting documents which resulted in a public sanction against a judge, but which were not introduced during a public hearing, lost their confidentiality after August 31, 1987. However, cases which are investigated but do not result in a public sanction remain confidential. In other words, every case begins as a case file, and is at that time confidential (and is part of the record series which is designated agency item number 1); those cases which result in public hearings, or which result in public sanctions without hearings, become open records and move into the record series which is given agency item number 9.

Effective August 31, 1987, "If the commission issues a public admonition, warning, reprimand, or requirement that a person obtain additional training or education, all papers, documents, evidence, and records considered by the commission, or forwarded to the commission by its staff, in the proceedings shall be public." (House Bill 1523, 70th Legislature, Regular Session, 1987), codified in V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 33.032(c).

Arrangement: Chronological, which is also numerical by public record number (beginning with Number 1 after August 31, 1987).

Access constraints: None

Use constraints: None

Indexes or finding aids required for/or an aid to access? There is a public sanctions index, on computer disk, cross-referenced in three ways: by judge's name, by date, and by topic.

Gaps? None

Problems: None

Known related records in other agencies: Supreme Court cases

Previous destructions: Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library were checked for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and none were found for this series or for equivalent or related series.

Publications based on records: The published Annual Report summarizes examples of improper conduct, and analyzes types of sanctions statistically.

Recommendation: Public records, sanctions, and proceedings provide the fullest documentation of the major function of the commission, which is to discipline judges found guilty of improper conduct or incompetence. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct's records retention schedule should therefore continue to use "A" as the archival code. The records retention schedule should be amended to include the following statement under Remarks: "Documents constituting public records after the amendment of Chapter 33, Section 33.032 of the Texas Government Code, effective August 31, 1987. Includes audio cassettes as well as paper records. Files should be transferred to the State Archives after the end of the retention period, on an annual basis." The agency should also change the medium designation to "O", to reflect presence of audio cassettes.

The agency should now begin the transfer of those files which have met the retention requirement, including a hard copy of the index.

In the future, the agency might consider dividing this series into two series: records resulting in public sanctions without hearings, and records of public proceedings.

The appraisal archivist who is assigned the Supreme Court should also check with the Supreme Court to confirm that the Thoma case will eventually be transferred by them to the State Archives.

Agency holdings: Biennial budget requests are in the agency's offices (0.24 cubic foot). These records are retained by the agency for six years after the passage of the Appropriations Act. Actual holdings are 1988- [ongoing].

Archival holdings: None at the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library.

The archival requirement for this series is fulfilled by sending two copies to the Publications Clearinghouse, Texas State Library (13 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 3, Section 3.3(c)). The Clearinghouse holds copies dating 1971-[ongoing].

Description: This series consists of requests for legislative appropriations which the State Commission on Judicial Conduct has submitted each biennium to the Legislative Budget Board and other offices. The requests date from 1971-[ongoing]. The requests generally contain an administrator's statement of agency functions. The program objectives are listed, along with a description of each objective, a discussion of performance measures, statistics, efficiency measures, and expenses- -expended, current, and projected. Later requests also contain an organizational chart.

Purpose: These records are created to request specific appropriations from the legislature and to provide justification for the amounts requested.

Agency Program: Biennial budget requests are a mandatory requirement of the state budgetary process. The commission is charged with receiving, investigating, and prosecuting charges of improper conduct or disability made against the state's judges and judicial officers. (Texas Constitution, Article V, Section 1-a, and V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 33, especially Section 33.021 (5)-(6).) Additionally, although not specifically set forth in the constitutional or statutory authority, commission personnel participate as faculty concerning ethical and judicial conduct matters in judicial training programs.

Arrangement: Chronological

Access constraints: None

Use constraints: None

Indexes or finding aids required for/or an aid to access? None

Gaps? None; the first year for which a request was made (FY 1972) followed the first year of funded operation.

Problems: None

Known related records in other agencies: None

Previous destructions: Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library were checked for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and none were found for this series or for equivalent or related series.

Publications based on records: Legislative Budget Board, Legislative Budget Estimates have been published since fiscal years 1954 and 1955. This publication, a compilation of data for all state agencies, summarizes the fiscal information found in agency-submitted budgets or appropriation requests, but omits most of the narrative.

Recommendation: Biennial budget requests provide evidence of the agency's fiscal performance and needs. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct's records retention schedule should continue to use "A" as the archival code for these records. The archival requirement is fulfilled by sending copies to the Publications Clearinghouse of the Texas State Library, as the Remarks column in agency's records retention schedule indicates.

Agency holdings: Organizational charts are included in Biennial Budget Requests for FY 1994-1995 and 1996-1997; staff is described in narrative form in Annual Reports, 1983- [ongoing]. The agency retains a copy of its biennial budget request in its offices for six years after the passage of the Appropriations Act, and copies of its annual reports permanently (fractional). These records are retained by the agency until superseded. Actual holdings are 1993-[ongoing], published in the Biennial Budget Requests.

Archival holdings: None at the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library.

The archival requirement for this series is fulfilled by sending two copies of the requests for legislative appropriations to the Publications Clearinghouse, Texas State Library (13 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 3, Section 3.3(c)). The Clearinghouse holds those copies containing organizational charts, dating 1993- [ongoing].

Description: These records consist of charts showing the organizational structure of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, dating 1993-[ongoing], included in the published requests for legislative appropriations for those years. Descriptions of commission staff in narrative form are included in the published annual reports, 1983-[ongoing].

Purpose: The purpose of organizational charts is to indicate agency staff organization in a graphic format.

Agency Program: The commission is charged with receiving, investigating, and prosecuting charges of improper conduct or disability made against the state's judges and judicial officers. (Texas Constitution, Article V, Section 1-a, and V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 33, especially Section 33.021 (5)-(6).) The agency has no separate divisions, just an executive director, a general counsel, legal staff, and administrative staff, totaling 9.5 full-time equivalent employees in 1994.

Arrangement: Chronological

Access constraints: None

Use constraints: None

Indexes or finding aids required for/or an aid to access? None

Gaps? Organizational charts were not published prior to the FY 1994-1995 Biennial Budget Request. However, staff is described in narrative form in annual reports, 1983-[ongoing].

Problems: None

Known related records in other agencies: None

Previous destructions: Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library were checked for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and none were found for this series or for equivalent or related series.

Recommendation: Organizational charts assist in understanding the basic structure of an agency. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct's records retention schedule should continue to use "A" as the archival code. The archival requirement is fulfilled by sending copies of the biennial budget requests to the Publications Clearinghouse of the Texas State Library, so long as those charts are published in them. The Remarks column in agency's records retention schedule should state: "Included in Biennial Budget Request. The archival requirement will be met by sending a copy to the Publications Clearinghouse, Texas State Library."

Agency holdings: Annual reports are in the agency's offices (0.2 cubic foot). These records are retained by the agency permanently. Actual holdings are 1983-1988 and 1990-[ongoing].

Archival holdings: None at the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library.

The archival requirement for this series is fulfilled by sending 55 copies of each annual report to the Publications Clearinghouse, Texas State Library, where two copies are kept and the rest distributed (13 Texas Administrative Code, Section 3.3(a)(1)). The Clearinghouse holds 1983-[ongoing], but is missing two reports: 1990 and 1992.

Description: This series consists of narrative reports to the legislature describing the activity of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct during the preceding year. The reports date from 1983-[ongoing]. As required by law beginning in 1983, "the report must include: (1) an explanation of the role of the commission; (2) annual statistical information and examples of proper and improper judicial conduct; (3) an explanation of the commission's processes; and (4) changes the commission considers necessary in its rules or the applicable statutes or constitutional provisions. (c) The commission shall distribute the report to the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house of representatives."

Purpose: Annual reports are created and submitted to the legislature to account for the activities of the commission, and to request necessary and appropriate changes in the law and/or the constitution.

Agency Program: The commission is charged with receiving, investigating, and prosecuting charges of improper conduct or disability made against the state's judges and judicial officers. (Texas Constitution, Article V, Section 1-a, and V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 33.) Annual reports are specifically required by law for this agency, and the content of these reports is likewise mandated by law. (House Bill 734, 68th Legislature, Regular Session, 1983, codified in V.T.C.A., Government Code, Section 33.005)

Arrangement: Chronological

Access constraints: None

Use constraints: None

Indexes or finding aids required for/or an aid to access? None

Gaps? No annual reports were required or published before 1983 (1969-1982).

Problems: None

Known related records in other agencies: None

Previous destructions: Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library were checked for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and none were found for this series or for equivalent or related series.

Publications based on records: As required by law, annual reports were reprinted in the Annual Report of the Texas Judicial Council (1984-1987). Currently, they are also reprinted in the Texas Bar Journal (1983- [ongoing]); however, I was unable to find one in a twelve-month sampling, and in my opinion, the format of the Bar Journal is not very conducive to locating a specific article.

Recommendation: Annual reports provide an excellent source of summary information about the agency's activities over time. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct's records retention schedule should continue to use "A" as the archival code. The archival requirement is fulfilled by sending copies to the Publications Clearinghouse of the Texas State Library, as the Remarks column in agency's records retention schedule indicates.

In addition, if the agency has duplicate copies of those annual reports which are missing from the Clearinghouse (1990 and 1992), they should transfer these to the Clearinghouse.

Agency holdings: Administrative correspondence is in several offices within the agency (approximately 3-4 cubic feet). Actual holdings are 1966-[ongoing], although the agency has assigned a retention period of only three years.

Archival holdings: None at the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library.

Description: These records are the administrative correspondence of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, consisting of incoming and outgoing letters and internal memoranda relating to agency policy, agency rule changes, and substantive administrative issues. These records date from 1966-[ongoing]. The series contains such things as correspondence with state officials, the American Bar Association, etc., communications regarding changes in the Code of Judicial Conduct, commissioners' loyalty oaths, etc. Most letters concerning complaints against judges are filed with the Case Files (which are confidential), but there are occasionally some which are in a gray area and are filed with Administrative Correspondence (e.g., a letter from a state representative or senator urging prosecution of a particular case).

Purpose: Administrative correspondence is created during the course of daily agency business, and is retained to document the substantive administration of the agency and to guide the commission in planning future administration of its duties.

Agency Program: The commission is charged with receiving, investigating, and prosecuting charges of improper conduct or disability made against the state's judges and judicial officers. Administrative correspondence documents past and present administration and enforcement of the law governing the agency, and guides future decisions and activities. (Texas Constitution, Article V, Section 1-a, and V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 33.)

Arrangement: By subject

Access constraints: None

Use constraints: None

Indexes or finding aids required for/or an aid to access? None

Gaps? None

Problems: Administrative correspondence files must first be evaluated intra-agency for relevance and confidentiality (according to the Records Administrator). These files still get some in-house use by the staff. Mary Ann Albin (records consultant) suggested that the retention period might be changed from 3 years to AC + whatever (5-6 years).

Known related records in other agencies: None

Previous destructions: Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library were checked for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and none were found for this series or for equivalent or related series.

Recommendation: Both the executive director and the records administrator believe that this series is a substantial source of documentation for agency activity, even though it is rather small. The other two types of correspondence received by the agency are general correspondence (the routine type which has no archival value), and correspondence regarding complaints and allegations (which ends up in the confidential case files and is therefore not open for research). This series of administrative correspondence is the only correspondence which is neither routine nor entirely confidential.

I therefore recommend that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct change the archival designation of this series from "R" to "A". After review by the agency for confidentiality, files which are no longer of sufficient current administrative use should be transferred to the State Archives, and then reviewed annually for future transfer.

The agency should consider filing administrative correspondence chronologically within topics, to facilitate the regular transfer of the appropriate years to the State Archives.

The agency's Records Administrator should consult with the State Library's Record Consultant concerning the possible revision of the retention period, to assure smooth transfers of administrative correspondence in the future.

Agency holdings: Executive directives are in the agency's offices (less than 0.3 cubic foot). These records are retained by the agency for three years after they are superseded. Actual holdings are 1983-[ongoing].

Archival holdings: None at the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library.

Description: The series named "Executive Directives" actually consists of routine directives to State Commission on Judicial Conduct staff concerning housekeeping issues, dating 1983-[ongoing]. Examples of typical directives include "check out equipment before going on travel," "the last person leaving the office should turn off the lights," etc.

Purpose: Directives are created to inform and remind agency staff of routine housekeeping policies.

Agency Program: The commission is charged with receiving, investigating, and prosecuting charges of improper conduct or disability made against the state's judges and judicial officers (Texas Constitution, Article V, Section 1-a, and V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 33.) These records attend to basic and routine agency administration, not the primary purpose.

Arrangement: Chronological

Access constraints: None

Use constraints: None

Indexes or finding aids required for/or an aid to access? None

Gaps? None are on file for the early years of the agency, 1965-1982.

Problems: None

Known related records in other agencies: None

Previous destructions: Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library were checked for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and none were found for this series or for equivalent or related series.

Recommendation: This series documents routine staff functions and duties. The important policies and procedures of the agency are documented in the Annual Report (Non- Fiscal), and also in Administrative Correspondence. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct should therefore remove the "R" designation, and possibly change the name of the series to "Directives."

Agency holdings: Policies and procedures are published in the annual reports, which are in the agency's offices (0.2 cubic foot). These records are published in annual reports, which are retained by the agency permanently. Actual holdings are 1983-1988 and 1990-[ongoing].

Archival holdings: None at the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library.

The archival requirement for this series is fulfilled by being published in the agency's annual reports, copies of which are sent to the Publications Clearinghouse, Texas State Library (13 Texas Administrative Code, Section 3.3(a)(1)). The Clearinghouse holds 1983-[ongoing].

Description: These records are the policies and procedures of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, consisting of agency statutes/constitutional provisions concerning agency operations, paraphrased in layman's terms, printed each year in the Annual Report. These records date from 1984-[ongoing]. According to statute, "the [annual] report must include: ...(3) an explanation of the commission's processes; and (4) changes the commission considers necessary in its rules or the applicable statutes or constitutional provisions." There are no additional records other than what is published in the annual reports.

Purpose: These records are published to help the legislature and other interested parties understand the policies and procedures of the Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Agency Program: The Commission on Judicial Conduct is charged with receiving, investigating, and prosecuting charges of improper conduct or disability made against the state's judges and judicial officers. The policies and procedures defining this process are vital agency records, and are required by law to be included in the Annual Reports to the legislature:

"Sec. 15B. Annual Report. (a) Before December 1 of each year, the commission shall submit to the legislature a report for the preceding fiscal year ending August 31. (b) The report must include: ...(3) an explanation of the commission's processes; and (4) changes the commission considers necessary in its rules or the applicable statutes or constitutional provisions."

Previous destructions: Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library were checked for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and none were found for this series or for equivalent or related series.

Recommendation: Policies and procedures are vital agency records documenting how the agency fulfills its main mission, and this agency is required by law to publish those policies and procedures in its Annual Report, which itself is an archival record series.

However, since the records administrator indicates that there is no additional documentation of policies and procedures other than what is published in the Annual Report, and since Annual Reports are already designated archival, it seems redundant to have a separate series which is contained within another series. My recommendation, therefore, is that the State Commission on Judicial Conduct should eliminate the series called "Policies and procedures" altogether.

Agency holdings: Conference reports are in the agency's offices (less than 0.4 cubic foot). Actual holdings are 1966- [ongoing], although the agency has assigned a retention period of only two years.

Archival holdings: None at the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library.

Description: These records consist of reports presented or delivered by the executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to conferences such as those of the national Association of Judicial Disciplinary Counsels, the American Judicature Society, etc. These reports date from 1966-[ongoing]. They include only reports prepared by or delivered by staff members of the commission (i.e., the executive director) in conjunction with commission work. A typical title would be "Strategies for developing budget strengths in the legislature."

Purpose: Conference reports are created to inform persons attending annual national conferences of the work of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Agency Program: The State Commission on Judicial Conduct is charged with enforcing the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 1 of that Code, "Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary," is the basis for the three objectives which the commission has set for itself: to preserve the integrity of all judges in the state; to ensure public confidence in the judiciary; and to encourage judges to maintain high standards of both professional and personal conduct.

Participation in regular conferences is an excellent way for staff to publicize the activities of the commission, which in turn tends to boost public confidence in the judiciary.

Arrangement: Chronological

Access constraints: None

Use constraints: None

Indexes or finding aids required for/or an aid to access? None

Gaps? None

Problems: None

Known related records in other agencies: None

Previous destructions: Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library were checked for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and none were found for this series or for equivalent or related series.

Recommendation: The commission's major functions appear to be adequately documented by the annual reports, administrative correspondence, and (especially) the public records, sanctions, and proceedings. A secondary function, such as that of encouraging public confidence in the judiciary (addressed indirectly in the conference reports), does not require permanent documentation.

Therefore the State Commission on Judicial Conduct should remove the "R" designation of this series from the agency's records retention schedule, and implement the two-year retention period.

Agency holdings: Speeches are in the agency's offices (.6 cubic foot). Actual holdings are 1966-[ongoing], although the agency has assigned a retention period of only two years.

Archival holdings: None at the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library.

Description: These records consist of outlines of speeches and accompanying display material and test exercises, given by the executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, primarily in judicial training programs. These speeches date from 1966-[ongoing].

Purpose: The executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct delivers speeches and other training presentations to help train judges and court personnel, and/or to educate and inform groups of judges, attorneys, or the general public, concerning judicial conduct and ethics issues.

Agency Program: The State Commission on Judicial Conduct is charged with enforcing the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 1 of that Code, "Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary," is the basis for the three objectives which the commission has set for itself: to preserve the integrity of all judges in the state; to ensure public confidence in the judiciary; and to encourage judges to maintain high standards of both professional and personal conduct. The executive director prepares and delivers speeches which are intended to further all three goals.

Although not specifically set forth in the constitutional or statutory authority, commission personnel participate as faculty concerning ethical and judicial conduct matters in judicial training programs.

Arrangement: Chronological

Access constraints: None

Use constraints: None

Indexes or finding aids required for/or an aid to access? None

Gaps? None

Problems: None

Known related records in other agencies: None

Previous destructions: Destruction requests on file in the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library were checked for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, and none were found for this series or for equivalent or related series.

Recommendation: Speeches are one of the few records which document the role of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct in furthering judicial training. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct should therefore change the "R" designation to "A," and transfer to the State Archives those files which have met the retention period.

I also urge the agency to file a complete text of each speech, if possible, rather than merely an outline with supporting documents.